Starvation Mode..blah blah blah lol

rocknrolla2009
rocknrolla2009 Posts: 63 Member
edited September 20 in Health and Weight Loss
Hey,

I keep getting told if I don't eat all my recommended servings/day, my body is going to go into "starvation mode" and hold on to the fat. I don't buy it..maybe insights from others would help me understand why it's repeated to me over and over by my WL coaches.

If I am eating my foods through the day, stop eating when full at meals, and get to the end of the day short 200 calories, how is my body going to go into survival mode? Won't that happen only when you suddenly go from eating 1500 calories to 200 calories? What good is it going to do to forcefeed myself those extra calories?
«1

Replies

  • jdurham87
    jdurham87 Posts: 62
    Good question! I wonder the same..waiting on responses :-D
  • Like you, I have wondered the same thing. I would love to hear what other people think of this. I rarely eat my recommended calories per day. I am usually under by 50-120. I don't want to go into "starvation mode" if that is possible!
  • SraArroz
    SraArroz Posts: 238
    Great question... I thought the weight loss would be a result of consuming fewer calories and burning more. So, when I burn 700 calories at the gym, I certainly don't want to come home and eat an extra 700... I must be over-thinking it at this point?
  • becky23
    becky23 Posts: 60
    first of all, I am in starvation mode now and it SUCKS! I was eating less than 1200 cals every day and losing weight every week. I was so happy! I lost 20lbs in 2 1/2 months!! I haven't lost any weight for almost 2 1/2 months now. My weight hadn't budged a bit, not even the inches!

    Once your body is in starvation mode, it stops losing. Once you start eating the right amount of calories your body needs, you start gaining. It's a horrible feeling. I wish I had never done the low calorie thing, I totally regret it. I don't know when I'll start losing again, but it sure is taking a long time.

    I suggest eating your recommended amount of cals. eat nuts! just a few of them have a lot of GOOD calories, you won't be stuffed!!
  • when you go into "starvation mode" you lose your electrolites which helps you lose weight, also you it uses your bodies amino acids for fuel instead of glycogen which takes away your muscle, and stores the glycogen which turns into fat
  • AmandaB4588
    AmandaB4588 Posts: 655
    Your car won't run without fuel and neither will your body. Eat your calories so your body will function the way it should.
  • stylistchik
    stylistchik Posts: 1,436 Member
    Everyone is different, but it is recommended that you eat a decent amount of calories or your metabolism will essentially shut down. If you're eating too few calories its also hard to get all the nutrients you need. If you're needing to eat these calories because you burned them during exercise, tone it down a bit because your body cannot recover properly on inadequate nutrition. There's more to it but thats the idea. If multiple sources are telling you this, don't you think its worth considering? It's not about stuffing yourself, but getting proper nutrition. Being under by 100 calories is ok being under by 500 (consistently) is not.
  • lt_mrcook
    lt_mrcook Posts: 389 Member
    Do a Google search on the topic. I believe starvation mode is when you are under 50% of what your body actually needs for an extended period of time (don't remember the time frame).

    Remember if you told MFP you wanted to lose 2 lbs per week, it will give you a calorie negative of ~1,000 each day...without exercise. Go to your goals and tell it you want to change them manually. Don't change anything, but look at your calorie needs and goal and see where you already are each day.

    I personnaly am at -980 to start every day. So being 20 under is ideal. If I exercise, then I should try to replace some of that fuel that I burned, so that I don't go too far under. Though I do hear you that sometimes it's just plain hard to eat that much food...:) If you're not hungry, don't eat. Maybe just add a couple of calorie dense foods to your day in place of something with less calories.

    Good luck!
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    I recently wrote an entire article about this on my MFP blog. See here:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/stroutman81/view/the-starvation-mode-20677
  • FireMonkey
    FireMonkey Posts: 500 Member
    Just a couple of points: your calories on mfp are already calculated below your maintenance rate. If your goal is to lose 1 pound per week then the mfp calories are 500 less than maintenance per day; 3,500 per week, which adds up to 1 pound. You don't need to go and burn extra calories through exercise. If you exercise, you need to eat more than the minimum calories to fuel your body.

    But I also think "starvation mode" is a bit overused here. You want to meet you nutritional needs, which is difficult to do with fewer than 1,200 net calories. Calories like Dr. Bernstein with 800 calories per day rely on medical supervision and supplements. However I believe that many people with weight issues (over or underweight) have lost the skill of listening to their bodies. They may mistake thirst for hunger, not get any "full" signals after eating, or may ignore hunger signals and starve themselves to the point that they're making themselves sick.

    Anybody who eats healthy and takes a reasonable approach to diet and exercise should be able to achieve and maintain a healthy weight and fitness level (unless there are some underlying medical problems). I don't agonize if I've got 300 calories left at the end of one day, or go over by a 100 the next. But I also wouldn't post here asking for advice if I'm not willing to hear it. There are always two sides to every coin.

    Cheers! :drinker:
  • danhjkim
    danhjkim Posts: 6
    From what I've read "Starvation mode" is the body adjusting to a lower caloric intake. Essentially the fewer calories you eat the fewer calories your body burns. They ran one or two studies (you'll have to google) where they took some test subjects below 1200 calories a day. It was "Semi-starvation" as actually starving them wasn't possible.

    From what I remember the test subjects BMR dropped along with their caloric intake. IIRC at 50% of their regular calories their BMR was something like 40% of their normal BMR. It's important to note though that even at 50% of their regular calories and at 40% of their normal BMR they were still losing weight.

    There was another study (it could have been the same one) that indicated that obese people had a physiological response to drastically reduced calories that kept onto lean muscle and they burned their fat stores faster than lean people.

    In short the fewer calories you eat the lower your BMR goes. Which from a physiological perspective makes a lot of sense. Your body conserves the energy stores it has when it is not getting enough calories.

    I've also heard anecdotal evidence on other boards that not eating every 2 or 3 hours puts your body into a "starvation mode". I don't know if I agree with this as I haven't found any scientific evidence to support this. Your blood glucose does drop and I not eating every few hours can make people hungrier and tend to gorge when they do eat. But I haven't seen any studies that said eating 2000 calories a day in 3 sittings versus 6 sittings is better for you or you burn more calories by eating 6 timers a day.

    I've also heard anecdotal evidence when people plateau at a given weight range after that increasing their caloric intake for a week or so will help "restart" their weight loss. I haven't seen any scientific evidence to support this theory either but so many people have had this work for them I would not be surprised if their was some other mechanism at work. Perhaps increasing their calories gives them more energy to work harder and break themselves out of plateau? I'm not sure.
  • ErikaSudz
    ErikaSudz Posts: 26
    I feel like I am eating all the time and yet I am still not reaching my calories for the day. I don't want to stuff myself when I am not hungry.

    Erika
  • mommyhof3
    mommyhof3 Posts: 551 Member
    I feel like I am eating all the time and yet I am still not reaching my calories for the day. I don't want to stuff myself when I am not hungry.

    Erika

    Eat some nuts or have a glass of milk or a piece of cheese. All higher in calories and fill in those calorie gaps :smile:
  • whyflysouth
    whyflysouth Posts: 308 Member
    I felt the same way as you and I just kept my cal intake low and lost weight 2lbs a week consistently for 2 months and then it stopped for about 2 weeks. So I decided that maybe I was in "starvation mode...blah blah blah" so I upped my calories and gained 1.5 lbs in the first week, but 2 weeks later I've gone down (w/o decreasing my upped calorie intake) so it seemed to reboot my weight-loss system...

    Basic point: Starvation mode seems like unintuitive nonsense until you actually experience it yourself - and then you believe. Calling it "starvation mode" is odd though, I didn't feel like I was starving myself though I was going low, and in a small way I was rationing my energy expenditure to only exert itself when I was exercising on the treadmill or at the gym, throughout the rest of my day I was setting myself up to be near sedentary as possible. Call it what you like, you'll stop losing weight and the numbers game that calorie counting is will appear completely ineffective.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    From what I've read "Starvation mode" is the body adjusting to a lower caloric intake.

    It's the adjustment to that as well as the actual tissue loss. The tissues, themselves, are "tied into" a giant feedback loop. For instance, body fat is one of the primary places Leptin is created. Leptin happens to be a signaling hormone (among many other things) that let's your brain know you're fed. So when we lose fat, we also reduce our Leptin levels, and what follows in a healthy functioning person is a cascade of hormonal shifts (things like insulin, peptide YY, ghrelin, cholecystokinin, etc.) that signal the body to slow things down a bit.

    Even without those things, if we say metabolism or total energy requirements are comprised of basal metabolic rate (bmr), thermic effect of activity (tea) and thermic effect of food (tef), it's obvious that "metabolism" or energy requirements are going to fall as weight falls simply b/c things like bmr and tea are going to fall.

    On the bmr front, there's simply less tissue to support which leads to a lower caloric need.

    On the tea front, it's not going to "cost" you as much energy to move around after you lose weight, thus reducing energy needs.

    All of this is part of the adaptive process that many people collectively like to call the starvation mode.

    If you read my article that I posted above, one of the biggest misconceptions is that it only happens when you starve yourself. In reality, your body will adjust to the stress of weight loss regardless of the size of your calorie deficit. Sure, you can increase or decrease the rate of adaptation, but it's going to happen one way or the other.

    It's biologically hardwired into us thanks to our evolutionary history.
    They ran one or two studies (you'll have to google) where they took some test subjects below 1200 calories a day. It was "Semi-starvation" as actually starving them wasn't possible.

    From what I remember the test subjects BMR dropped along with their caloric intake. IIRC at 50% of their regular calories their BMR was something like 40% of their normal BMR. It's important to note though that even at 50% of their regular calories and at 40% of their normal BMR they were still losing weight.

    There are actually a number of studies out there on the subject. You might be remembering the Minnesota Starvation Experiment where researchers took already thin men and put them on low calorie diets for extended periods of time. The goal was to learn about the bodies adaptive response to prolonged, extreme hypocaloric diets so that we'd have some therapeutic/clinical applications for rehabbing Nazi concentration camp prisoners.

    There's actually a book that's out there that doesn't go into all of the scientific data but it does describe the story behind the research and it's quite good... I highly recommend it to those interested.

    As far as the actual paper goes, it's one of the most often cited when metabolic slowdown comes into discussion. Rightfully so, too, as it is one of, if not the largest ever recorded slowdown in metabolism in research history.

    There was, as you mentioned, a 40% reduction in in metabolism. However, it should be noted that this occurred after half a year of eating 50% of calories in already lean mean.

    Most people don't reduce calories by that much and most people aren't lean trying to get leaner. Fatter people don't have to worry nearly as much about muscle loss and metabolic slowdown as do their leaner counterparts. So while the study is interesting, it's not as applicable as many folks make it out to be.

    What's more is MOST of that reduction in metabolism was accounted for by the reduction in tissue. As noted above, obviously if you have less tissue, it's not going to "cost you" as many calories to maintain yourself and it's not going to "cost you" as many calories to move around. That was by and large the majority of the metabolic slowdown.

    However, there was an adaptive component too. By that, I mean metabolism was lower than would be expected based solely on the reduction in weight. This stemmed from what most folks label as the "starvation mode," which is a reduction in metabolic rate that goes beyond what's expected when weight is lost and it stems from things I mentioned above. To truly understand it, as it's quite complex, you need to have a firm handle of neuroendocrinology as it's primarily rooted in adaptations of the hormonal and brain systems.
    There was another study (it could have been the same one) that indicated that obese people had a physiological response to drastically reduced calories that kept onto lean muscle and they burned their fat stores faster than lean people.

    Sorry, I'm replying as I read along. And though I'm quoting you, I'm really replying to everyone in hopes of clearing up any misconceptions that exist.

    As I noted above, you're spot on. Fatter folks don't have near as much to worry about when it comes to starvation mode.
    In short the fewer calories you eat the lower your BMR goes. Which from a physiological perspective makes a lot of sense. Your body conserves the energy stores it has when it is not getting enough calories.

    Just remember it's not all about calories, as I noted at the start. And it's not just about a reduction in metabolism. For instance, in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, it was proven that part of that adaptive process to prolonged hypocaloric eating would be an increase in thoughts of food... even an infatuation if you will. These men literally dreamed of food as some would dream of sex. Essentially your neurophysiology and endocrine system adapt in such a way that literally drive you to eat.

    Why?

    Because "many moons" ago this is how humans survived. Evolution happens at an excruciatingly slow pace. We, as humans, are still hardwired to survive times of famine that our ancestors had to inevitably endure when winter rolled around and all the food either died or headed for the equator.

    Fattening up just to survive little to no calories during other parts of the year were a way of life, and said way of life influenced our biology.
    I've also heard anecdotal evidence on other boards that not eating every 2 or 3 hours puts your body into a "starvation mode". I don't know if I agree with this as I haven't found any scientific evidence to support this. Your blood glucose does drop and I not eating every few hours can make people hungrier and tend to gorge when they do eat. But I haven't seen any studies that said eating 2000 calories a day in 3 sittings versus 6 sittings is better for you or you burn more calories by eating 6 timers a day.

    Exactly so. In fact, there's some neat stuff coming out of the intermittent fasting crowd where meal frequency is altered drastically and results are very impressive. For those interested, good Martin Berkhan.

    The moral of the story is if it took the men in the Starvation Experiment referenced above 6 months to realize a relatively small starvation response, you're sure as heck not going to see a difference in metabolic rate after a couple of hours.
    I've also heard anecdotal evidence when people plateau at a given weight range after that increasing their caloric intake for a week or so will help "restart" their weight loss. I haven't seen any scientific evidence to support this theory either but so many people have had this work for them I would not be surprised if their was some other mechanism at work. Perhaps increasing their calories gives them more energy to work harder and break themselves out of plateau? I'm not sure.

    There's actually quite a bit of data that supports this notion. For the most part, it goes back to the hormonal regulators of metabolism and yes, in a way, upping calories "resets" some of the metabolic adaptations that happened. Do some research into Leptin metabolism and refeeds. I've said too much already in this post and my intent is not to bore folks, believe it or not! :)
  • Well what i have heard in the past is to trick your body so it doesn't recognise that you have been starving it.

    I was told that if you take off 1g of food to what you would normally eat, you still fill full and your body wont go into starvation mode.
    Once you start to get use to that amount of food, take another gram off.

    I have also noticed that MFP have a similar thing where you can update your goals which amends the calories for you.

    Dont try and starv yourself into loosing weight. Thats how we most of us put it on in the first place. Crash dieting, Body Starvs, Stores all the fat, Then when we eat something we put on what we lost if not more.

    Also another trick is to be realistic. Dont set your goal too hire for loosing weight. I only set my goal to loose 1/2kg a week.

    Anyhows..... good luck with it.
  • July24Lioness
    July24Lioness Posts: 2,399 Member
    first of all, I am in starvation mode now and it SUCKS! I was eating less than 1200 cals every day and losing weight every week. I was so happy! I lost 20lbs in 2 1/2 months!! I haven't lost any weight for almost 2 1/2 months now. My weight hadn't budged a bit, not even the inches!

    Once your body is in starvation mode, it stops losing. Once you start eating the right amount of calories your body needs, you start gaining. It's a horrible feeling. I wish I had never done the low calorie thing, I totally regret it. I don't know when I'll start losing again, but it sure is taking a long time.

    I suggest eating your recommended amount of cals. eat nuts! just a few of them have a lot of GOOD calories, you won't be stuffed!!


    LOL, you are not in starvation mode. That is called a stall. Please research before stating something such as this. This is how the rumors of "starvation mode" stay alive.

    You would have to have been consuming 500-600 calories per day for an extended amount of time to go into a starvation mode type scenario..........
  • becky23
    becky23 Posts: 60
    [quote/]
    LOL, you are not in starvation mode. That is called a stall. Please research before stating something such as this. This is how the rumors of "starvation mode" stay alive.

    You would have to have been consuming 500-600 calories per day for an extended amount of time to go into a starvation mode type scenario..........
    [/quote]


    I was eating less than 1000 calories for over 2 months straight and working out every day, i believe I was in starvation mode with only consuming around 600 calories. Thank you very much!
  • becky23
    becky23 Posts: 60
    meant to quote that sorry. =D
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Funny how anorexics never have problems consistently losing weight while they're in a prolonged, serious energy-intake shortage.

    Moral of the story.

    Overburdening your bodies ability to manage stress and prolonged dieting can cause adaptation to metabolism leading to slowdown that supersedes what would be expected based solely on the tissue loss. However, it's not going to make weight loss impossible. And it's certainly not going to bend thermodynamics where people are gaining weight in an energy deficit.

    Even though I was quoting someone above, I stress everyone reads what I typed above as well as the link I provided.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    I'm gonna stay out of this one because I think Stroutman has it well in hand. I just wanted to say nice job strout. I couldn't have said any of it better myself (and actually, I couldn't have stated it as well in some cases).

    And can I say, excellent read, your blog post. It's what I've been saying for the last 2 plus years on here.

    -Banks
  • danhjkim
    danhjkim Posts: 6
    @stroutman81 great post that is very informative. I heard a lot of 'starvation mode' and did a little research on my own. It's nice to hear from someone that is well grounded and backs up their positions with scientific evidence and research. You filled in a lot of holes in my knowledge.
  • megamom
    megamom Posts: 920 Member
    I have trouble with this starvation mode theory because when people are really starving....... they lose weight. I think people hit plateaus which is different then actual starvation. I know I am new to this site but not to losing weight. In the past when I stalled I mixed things around. Changed my breakfast, rotated my calories, tried different foods and usually broke out of it fairly quickly. JMHO. I am no expert. Sometimes I would just eat the same thing day after day as I already knew what the nutritional value was and I got lazy, maybe the body does also. Keep it guessing is my theory.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    I have trouble with this starvation mode theory because when people are really starving....... they lose weight. I think people hit plateaus which is different then actual starvation. I know I am new to this site but not to losing weight. In the past when I stalled I mixed things around. Changed my breakfast, rotated my calories, tried different foods and usually broke out of it fairly quickly. JMHO. I am no expert. Sometimes I would just eat the same thing day after day as I already knew what the nutritional value was and I got lazy, maybe the body does also. Keep it guessing is my theory.

    megamom, I would respectfully suggest that you read Stroutman's blog on starvation mode. It really does explain the facts from a scientific, yet understandable slant.
  • aerobicgirl
    aerobicgirl Posts: 354 Member
    my opinion you eat right and exercise its a win win situation. it can't come off over night. i learned that the hard way. you stress about it your gonna gain, most women gain from stress and among other things. but i think the starvation mode it over- rated also. im not saying i eat healthy all the time i have my hamburger and fries every now and them but i don't make it an everyday thing. but then again im not looking to lose 2 lbs a week. to me the faster if comes off the faster it willbe right back. im doing 1 lb every two weeks and if its more than great but be realistic about weight loss/
  • I LOVED Stroutmans Mythbusting blog! Thank you thank you thank you! I am on a starvation diet right now. Ahhhhh,.... I am in heaven. Thank God I am on it. I have lost 30 lbs. in 2 months.

    This is AFTER 2 years of healthy, low glycemic, high phytonutrient, whole food eating with strength training and cardio 6x per week. It unfortunately didn't work for me (I have thyroid issues). The problem is, being on even a small calorie deficit for 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, etc. is really, really detrimental to the MIND. I am aware of the Great Starvation Experiment. It helped me realize that dieting without results is pretty harmful to my relationship with food. I admit, I had things going on medically that explained my inability to lose weight (hypothyroid), but because I was undiagnosed, I just thought I had to work harder, and I thought that because I'm a woman, I'm 40, of course I have to do p90x and be perfect on food, etc. Man, that did more damage to me.... this LONG TERM LIFESTYLE OF DIETING is for the birds. I think it's bad for us/me.

    I'm so happy for everyone here that is doing it slowly and healthfully, and I am happy for those seeing results, but to diet as a lifestyle, so constantly, so no-stoppingly is, for me, really bad. That's why I'm trying to make the amount of time that I am dieting as short as possible. I, too, was scared of all that starvation mode stuff. But, heck, I know how to strength train and eat well -- I can certainly ramp up my metabolism once I'm done starving. It will feel wonderful to eat and work out.

    But for now, I'm getting the dieting over as fast as possible. I'm on 420 calories per day. When I'm done, I'm going on a MAINTENANCE program and stop this never-ending cycle of a daily deficit, always feeling unsatiated. I'm going to just walk or jog for health, and maintain my weight. Ah... the extra 500 calories per day will be amazing (adjusting for the new body weight, of course. I use getdunked.com to meausre my RMR and my body fat)

    Okay, anyhow, you can see I'm kind of in a mood! Thanks yall for your posts. I just love reading them! :)

    171593.png
    Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Weight Loss Tools
  • QUOTE:

    first of all, I am in starvation mode now and it SUCKS! I was eating less than 1200 cals every day and losing weight every week. I was so happy! I lost 20lbs in 2 1/2 months!! I haven't lost any weight for almost 2 1/2 months now. My weight hadn't budged a bit, not even the inches!

    Once your body is in starvation mode, it stops losing. Once you start eating the right amount of calories your body needs, you start gaining. It's a horrible feeling. I wish I had never done the low calorie thing, I totally regret it. I don't know when I'll start losing again, but it sure is taking a long time.

    I suggest eating your recommended amount of cals. eat nuts! just a few of them have a lot of GOOD calories, you won't be stuffed!!


    Sorry, how can anyone eat under 1200 calories. I'm struggling trying to keep under 1400. I know its possible, but hey i just started on this site. So for those who were eating only 600 calories,....um errrrr.......HOW? HOW THE HECK CAN YOU DO THAT AND NOT FEEL HUNGRY AT THE END OF THE DAY OR LATHARGIC. I see that as annarexic. PLEASE help me see how. I would love to be able to eat under 1000 cals but have no idea what would that would for a hole day and not be starving myself.
  • mollyelliott
    mollyelliott Posts: 55 Member
    Funny how anorexics never have problems consistently losing weight while they're in a prolonged, serious energy-intake shortage.

    Moral of the story.

    Overburdening your bodies ability to manage stress and prolonged dieting can cause adaptation to metabolism leading to slowdown that supersedes what would be expected based solely on the tissue loss. However, it's not going to make weight loss impossible. And it's certainly not going to bend thermodynamics where people are gaining weight in an energy deficit.

    Even though I was quoting someone above, I stress everyone reads what I typed above as well as the link I provided.


    funny. thast what i was just talking to my dad about last week. people get too freaked out about stuff.
  • becky23
    becky23 Posts: 60
    so lets see if i'm understanding this. Being on a starvation diet is ok? That's what i'm getting from this whole post and that blog. I was eating 600 cals for 2 months then STOPED losing weight. I'm trying to understand why I stopped.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    so lets see if i'm understanding this. Being on a starvation diet is ok? That's what i'm getting from this whole post and that blog. I was eating 600 cals for 2 months then STOPED losing weight. I'm trying to understand why I stopped.

    no, that's not it.

    First lets differentiate, starvation mode, is a "cloudy" concept that involves the body slowing down it's metabolic functions in order to conserve energy for the "upcoming" famine, which is something the body is genetically predisposed to do because of our ancient past. A starvation diet is a diet of less than 50% of your maintenance calories, they are 2 completely different things, with 2 completely different outcomes.

    Second, entering "starvation mode" is not like flipping a switch, it's a process the body is constantly evaluating. If you have too few calories coming in to satisfy energy needs, the body will begin slowing down unneeded metabolic functions, there is a tipping point in this VERY complex equation where if you eat too few calories weight loss is dramatically reduced, and calcium leeching and protein leeching is encouraged by the body. Note that this ALWAYS happens anyway to a degree in a caloric deficit, but when you keep your calories at a reasonable level, it's a small issue, and doesn't really play that much into your weight loss. When you start increasing the deficit, with no way to account for it, thats where problems happen.

    The reason why it's so complicated is that people with lots of fat (remember, fat is an energy source) can afford these larger deficits because the body will use them to compensate. When the fat comes off, the surface area of that fat goes down, which means less energy available to compensate for the calorie deficit, which means greater ACTUAL deficit, which means the body slows down more metabolic process, which means it's harder to lose real weight.

    Moral of this story.

    Keep your deficit reasonable, and eat back your exercise calories, at least to start, see where that goes for you, if you feel like you can do more with less, fine, but do it in small increments so that when the weight loss plateaus, you aren't required to make wholesale changes to fix things (which can take months).
This discussion has been closed.